Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

ORTIZ v. U.S., 15-20404-Civ-COOKE/WHITE. (2016)

Court: District Court, N.D. Florida Number: infdco20160229811 Visitors: 15
Filed: Feb. 26, 2016
Latest Update: Feb. 26, 2016
Summary: ORDER ADOPTING MAGISTRATE'S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION AND DENYING CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY MARCIA G. COOKE , District Judge . THIS MATTER was referred to the Honorable Patrick A. White, United States Magistrate Judge, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 636(b)(1)(B), Rules 8 and 10 of the Rules Governing Section 2255 Cases in the United States District Courts, and Administrative Order 2003-19 of this Court, for a ruling on all pre-trial, non-dispositive matters and for a Report and Recommendation o
More

ORDER ADOPTING MAGISTRATE'S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION AND DENYING CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY

THIS MATTER was referred to the Honorable Patrick A. White, United States Magistrate Judge, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §636(b)(1)(B), Rules 8 and 10 of the Rules Governing Section 2255 Cases in the United States District Courts, and Administrative Order 2003-19 of this Court, for a ruling on all pre-trial, non-dispositive matters and for a Report and Recommendation on any dispositive matters (ECF No. 3). On January 4, 2016, Judge White issued a Report of Magistrate Judge (ECF No. 17) recommending that (i) Adrian Ortiz's Motion to Vacate Sentence pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (ECF No. 1) be denied on the merits, (ii) any pending motions be denied as moot, and (iii) a certificate of appealability be denied. Mr. Ortiz filed his objections to Judge White's Report on January 12, 2016 (ECF No. 18).

I have considered Judge White's Report and Recommendation, Mr. Ortiz's objections, and have made a de novo review of the record. I find Judge White's Report and Recommendation clear, cogent, and compelling. It is hereby ORDERED and ADJUDGED that Judge White's Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 17) with respect to the merits of the case is AFFIRMED and ADOPTED. Accordingly, the Motion to Vacate Sentence (ECF No. 1) is DENIED. All pending motions, if any, are DENIED as moot. The Clerk is directed to CLOSE this case.

Further, Petitioner has not demonstrated that "jurists of reason could disagree with the district court's resolution of his constitutional claims or that jurists could conclude the issues presented are adequate to deserve encouragement to proceed further." Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 326 (2003); accord Lott v. Attorney Gen., Fla., 594 F.3d 1296, 1301 (11th Cir. 2010) (explaining that a "petitioner need not show he will ultimately succeed on appeal" in order to warrant a certificate of appealability). Accordingly, this Court DENIES a Certificate of Appealability in this case.

DONE and ORDERED.

Source:  Leagle

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer